Marcus Aurelius:Other solvents tend not to wear rock in the same fashion. Mars rock is composed from a lot of silicon and lesser basalts than Earth, but water erosion is distinct from streams of, say, liquid methane. Water is polar; it hydrates silica minerals, and has an astonishing vapor pressure to atomic weight ratio.

Meanwhile the chances of Mars getting cold enough to liquefy methane in volume and rain it from the sky in sufficient quantities to erode rock is between slim and none.

Those pictures....it's like I'm at the beach. Smooth rocks, different colors - meaning different compositions - meaning - from different places. That would require a substantial sustained flow. And since Mars has one/third the gravity, it was probably flowing for a good long time to smooth out those rocks. Amazing.

Fossils may be a problem though. With less gravity a life form could spread out more, would/could be more "feathery?" They may be hard to spot.

I think the theory is that Mars lost its magnetic field and solar radiation fried the place. Any scienticians feel free to correct me if I'm off base.

True. The atmosphere, even of Earth, needs a constant refresh of gasses to replenish the losses to space and the solar wind. Having a magnetic field is crucial to not having your gas shield stripped away.

Now pass me the sunblock. And don't forget to do the tops of your ears - you'll thank me when you're 90.

There are giant sinkholes in the surface of the planet that are clearly visible. Around these zones, as the seasons change, the amount of Methane in the atmosphere increases signficantly. The only process we know that releases methane into the atmosphere like this is biological.

So the question really is, "Why aren't we searching for life on Mars?" We know where to look, and we aren't even trying.

Other solvents tend not to wear rock in the same fashion. Mars rock is composed from a lot of silicon and lesser basalts than Earth, but water erosion is distinct from streams of, say, liquid methane. Water is polar; it hydrates silica minerals, and has an astonishing vapor pressure to atomic weight ratio.

Meanwhile the chances of Mars getting cold enough to liquefy methane in volume and rain it from the sky in sufficient quantities to erode rock is between slim and none.

well sure. but what if it wasn't liquid methane but rather iced tea? didn't think of that, did ya?

That would explain the red color, no doubt. But given the convenience stores wars we have on this planet between Wawa and 7-11 and the Gook-n-Go, I think we can assume that Taco Bell won the war on that planet.

Sad, really.

are you gay cause I have a couson that't gaay. and he is really cute and stuff.

Why, no, thank you mudpants, I am only happy. Alas Alack. But I bet if your cousin's peener was small enough and he was hairles like a mole rat and could hold his tiny balls back between his legs like you most likely can, I could mock him for the relative he is of yours.

There are giant sinkholes in the surface of the planet that are clearly visible. Around these zones, as the seasons change, the amount of Methane in the atmosphere increases signficantly. The only process we know that releases methane into the atmosphere like this is biological.

So the question really is, "Why aren't we searching for life on Mars?" We know where to look, and we aren't even trying.

So what you're saying is that there are cows in the sinkholes, is that right then?

There are giant sinkholes in the surface of the planet that are clearly visible. Around these zones, as the seasons change, the amount of Methane in the atmosphere increases signficantly. The only process we know that releases methane into the atmosphere like this is biological.

So the question really is, "Why aren't we searching for life on Mars?" We know where to look, and we aren't even trying.

So what you're saying is that there are cows in the sinkholes, is that right then?

The problem being that finding life, or fossil life, would set a mandate for a manned mission to study one of the most revolutionary discoveries in the history of mankind.I'm going to play the conspiracy thoery card and say that no scientist or politican with a fiefdom to protect wants their hands tied like that.

Whatever piece of equipment disovers anything will be declared faulty and the results inconclusive.

Are you kidding?

I'd gladly beat the myself half to death with my own arm which I ripped off for the purpose just to see the day we find current or past life on Mars.

The politician who greenlights a mars mission will get a fanbase a mile wide and a league long. He could be President if they find and return life.

Scientists are morons when it comes to anything but science. PR is most certainly not their strong suit. I mean, in a world where you can get a billion dollars for an ICBM to use on Sadam's house, how is NASA's funding being cut? Bad PR, that's how.

The problem being that finding life, or fossil life, would set a mandate for a manned mission to study one of the most revolutionary discoveries in the history of mankind.I'm going to play the conspiracy thoery card and say that no scientist or politican with a fiefdom to protect wants their hands tied like that.

Whatever piece of equipment disovers anything will be declared faulty and the results inconclusive.

It wouldn't require a "manned mission" - just a more focused mission like the one they're already doing. Expensive, but not that expensive, especially given all the time in the world, which we have. They managed to hit a targeted landing zone once within a 20 mile radius on a mission that was planned over a decade ago. They could do the same thing again with better accuracy at the same cost today.

There are giant sinkholes in the surface of the planet that are clearly visible. Around these zones, as the seasons change, the amount of Methane in the atmosphere increases signficantly. The only process we know that releases methane into the atmosphere like this is biological.

So the question really is, "Why aren't we searching for life on Mars?" We know where to look, and we aren't even trying.

Because, like I said, scientists suck at everything but science.

Microbiologists know EXACTLY how horrificly destructive even one Earth microbe could be to a native martian organism population. And of course vice versa.

The engineers know how hard it would be to actually search for life up there like you can in elementary school pond water, because optics and shovels are farkin' heavy and require things an interplanetary probe can't do without sacrificing other important functions.

The Astronomers need the "boring" rock analyses to test their extrapolations based on orbital readings for, hopefully, exploring other planets quicker in the future.

But I'm with you. fark scientists. fark the millitary. fark the martians. Let's send a probe to places with the most potential for life and give that farker a shovel and microscope and a microphone/speaker system.

justtray:doglover: The Astronomers need the "boring" rock analyses to test their extrapolations based on orbital readings for, hopefully, exploring other planets quicker in the future.

Okay, I'll accept this assertion. Now, why does that prevent us from searching in places where we have a high probability of finding life?

And what's wrong with sending probes to places that very likely have life with a shovel and a microscope? Is that not exactly what we are doing with Curiosity?

I really hope my sarcasm meter is just broken and you aren't a retarded NASA apologist....

Because getting a decent microscope lab on a robot that can actually dig a proper hole to mars is one piece is A LOT harder and more expensive than sending the kinds of missions we do send, and the value to science of finding microbes on Mars is minimal. Meanwhile, learning the geology of mars to double check what we think we know is important for reliability of future observations.